Best Batsman

[oz_fan]

Without arguing about specific names in that list above, we need to understand what we are saying.

- of the 391 batsmen who have played for Australia over a century and a quarter, the possible ALL TIME number 2 is playing today
- of 185of pakistan, over half a century, the undisputed ALL TIME number 1 is playing today
- of 252 for India, over three quarters of a century, all time undisputed ALL TIME number 1 and number 3 are playing today
- Of 298 that played for SAfrica, across well over a century, ALL TIME number 2 is playing today
- Of the 263 that have played for Windies over three quarters of a century, one of the ALL TIME top three is playing today.

We need to ask ourselves what a great blessing that is for us....or....what a great coincidence

I don't think I am overating this era of batsmen when you consider that Lara and Tendulkar have become the leading run corer and test maker, the benchmark for great batsmen and I think Ponting, Kallis and Dravid are in the top 20 best batmen averages of all time.

 

[SJS]

I don't think I am overating this era of batsmen when you consider that Lara and Tendulkar have become the leading run corer and test maker, the benchmark for great batsmen and I think Ponting, Kallis and Dravid are in the top 20 best batmen averages of all time.

I understand what you are saying and I am not talking individuals.

What I am saying is that we really need to understand the phenomenon of tall scores and consequent high averages of the last decade or more. Putting it down to a sudden remarkable increase in batting standards would a bit too simplistic.

Everyone realises that after the first world war, there was a sudden increase in cricketing fortunes of batsmen. Its not as if the war taught people how to make tall scores. There are other reasons to it. Simlarly there are changes occuring in the game, equipment, laws, grounds, administration, coaching emphasis etc etc which have implications on the way cricketers' game alters over time and these can not be just explained away by better or worse standards at least not only by these.

This is too exhaustive a subject to discuss in its entirety here but if you were to just start thinking about it, you would see some of it without even reading about it.

In any event thats my opinion. We can agree to differ.

 

[C_C]

What I am saying is that we really need to understand the phenomenon of tall scores and consequent high averages of the last decade or more.

I know the sheer volume of cricket makes it very hard to remember how things used to be ( and i notice that the most- i rarely watch cricket these days while i avidly watched cricket till 2000 or so. People's recollection of cricket 6-7 years ago is distinctly more blurred) but the bowling standard coupled with juicy pitches made batting quite a hard job till 2001 or so.

By 2001, Walsh and Ambrose were gone ( both were brilliant bowlers right until they retired- they didnt slowly fade) and Wasim,Waqar,Pollock and Donald had started their collective decline ( 3 of the 4 were to retire within the next 2 years).
But before merely 6 years ago, the bowling around the world was fearsome : Saqlain was threatening to turn out almost as good as Warne-Murali, Kumble the old warhorse was still there, Ambrose was his old self, Walsh was aeging like fine wine, Donald was knocking the stumps over, Pollock at his peak, McGrath at his peak, Warne as good as usual, Murali already establishing himself as a spin-bowling great, Srinath-who was better than any Indian pacer since- still chugging along, Wasim and Waqar being at their monstrous best, Mushie still having a little bit of that old magic left, Reon King showing excellent potential, Cairns just hitting his best bowling phase, Akhtar just hitting his groove, Ntini showing excellent potential, Vaas as good as usual and a young man called Mohammed Zahid put the fear of God in Brian Lara. Not to forget Gillespie, who's best phase IMO was in the late 90s. Or DeVilliers, who IMO was a fine exponent of swing bowling. The English attack of Gough-Caddick were not much off Harmison-Hoggard callibre and as such, i beleive that as recently as 5-6 years ago, the bowling standard around the world as impeccable. The only other phase i can think of that would rival such richness in bowling as the 1990s-early 2000s is the 1975-1986/87 period.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

@ Ed

 

[opc10]

With all due respect to bowlers, (They're not a real smart lot).
I'm not sure that there's much more that can be done in relation to bowling 'Technique'.
The problem is, there is no real perfect technique for bowling, as each individual has different motor skills, and no bowler really bowls the same.

Batting is a different matter. A correct forward defensive shot is just that. There is not much to play around with. So we can all train with basically the same set of rules. And with increased skills training as the sport has got more professional, techniques have arguably got better. (Disclaimer: Not ALL batsmen, but I'll think you'll find that techniques are better across the board)

As we all know a solid technique in batting can reap remarkable results.
For example where i play (Park Cricket), we have a couple of guys who have the hand-eye co-ordination of a brick, yet they are almost impossible to get out because they have perfect techniques. Now the same guys couldn't bowl the ball over a jam tin, because they are unco...

I actually think the main factor averages are better is simply that the batsmen are better.
Plus a marginal advantage with Bat Technology, and arguably flatter wickets as a whole?

 

[oz_fan]

I know the sheer volume of cricket makes it very hard to remember how things used to be ( and i notice that the most- i rarely watch cricket these days while i avidly watched cricket till 2000 or so. People's recollection of cricket 6-7 years ago is distinctly more blurred) but the bowling standard coupled with juicy pitches made batting quite a hard job till 2001 or so.

By 2001, Walsh and Ambrose were gone ( both were brilliant bowlers right until they retired- they didnt slowly fade) and Wasim,Waqar,Pollock and Donald had started their collective decline ( 3 of the 4 were to retire within the next 2 years).
But before merely 6 years ago, the bowling around the world was fearsome : Saqlain was threatening to turn out almost as good as Warne-Murali, Kumble the old warhorse was still there, Ambrose was his old self, Walsh was aeging like fine wine, Donald was knocking the stumps over, Pollock at his peak, McGrath at his peak, Warne as good as usual, Murali already establishing himself as a spin-bowling great, Srinath-who was better than any Indian pacer since- still chugging along, Wasim and Waqar being at their monstrous best, Mushie still having a little bit of that old magic left, Reon King showing excellent potential, Cairns just hitting his best bowling phase, Akhtar just hitting his groove, Ntini showing excellent potential, Vaas as good as usual and a young man called Mohammed Zahid put the fear of God in Brian Lara. Not to forget Gillespie, who's best phase IMO was in the late 90s. Or DeVilliers, who IMO was a fine exponent of swing bowling. The English attack of Gough-Caddick were not much off Harmison-Hoggard callibre and as such, i beleive that as recently as 5-6 years ago, the bowling standard around the world as impeccable. The only other phase i can think of that would rival such richness in bowling as the 1990s-early 2000s is the 1975-1986/87 period.

Yes this probably goes hand in hand with the fact that Dravid, Kallis and Ponting have averaged over 60 since 2000. That is an incredible acheivement to do that for over 5 - 6 years. Even when Lara and Tendulkar were at their peak in the 90's they could not keep up this average for a long period of time against the class bowlers of the 90's. Since the retirement of Akram, Younis, Donald,, etc and the drop in form of Pollock, Vaas, etc the worlds bowling stocks have really deteriorated.

Only now are bowlers stepping up into the shoes of these all time great bowlers.
England - Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, etc
Australia - Lee
NZ - Bond
etc

We were really blessed to see cricket at it's best in the late 90's with some of the greatest bowlers (Donald, Akram, Pollock, McGrath, Vaas, etc) facing some of the all time great batters (Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Inzy, Dravid, etc).

 

[honestbharani]

I am not sure Ponting was that great in the 90s, but maybe it was just that he was still in the early stages of his career. Maybe he just matured late as a batter. But I am hard pressed to believe that blokes like Ponting, Kallis, DRavid or Inzy can be among the top 10 batters of all time. Except Sachin and Lara, I personally don't see any of the others being in the top 10 list. I suppose as Pratyush always says, we are being extremely unfair in judging players now before their careers get over.

 

[age_master]

Lara at the moment, Ponting will be the answer in a couple of years time though. Both absolutley fantastic to watch though

 

[oz_fan]

Lara at the moment, Ponting will be the answer in a couple of years time though. Both absolutley fantastic to watch though

Yep. Agreed, Lara at the moment but in a few years I suspect I will be answering Ponting to this question and when you consider his only 31, his on track to break all the batting records that matter.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yep. Agreed, Lara at the moment but in a few years I suspect I will be answering Ponting to this question and when you consider his only 31, his on track to break all the records that matter.

His bowling's got to improve a bit before Jim Laker or Hedley Verity need to get too excited.

 

[oz_fan]

Ponting's century against Bangladesh now means he has scored a test century against all nations. His 31st century has also moved him up to equal 4th with Lara on the all time centurions list and only needs 4 more to equal Tendulkar.
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/LEADING_BATSMEN_TEST_100S.html
Here is an interesting article on Ponting's form of late.
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/bdeshvaus/content/current/story/244235.html

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That is a sensational article, I really enjoyed it.

I have never seen a batsman perform the way Ponting has in the last six months, really. Even when Steve Waugh dominated the West Indies, or Lara in 99. Ponting seems to be able to score any sort of century against any bowling in any conditions. If he's not grinding out a century on a slow, uneven pitch, he's somehow managing one on a seamer despite getting beaten twice an over, saving a game by batting all day or murdering the bowling at a run a ball in a run chase. 8 centuries in 10 tests says it all, and three of those have come in the fourth innings. In all probability his form won't last and he'll remain on the same level as Kallis and Dravid at the end of his career, but if he was to play the way he has recently for a couple of years he could well elevate himself ahead of all his peers in terms of reputation.

 

[Jono]

Yeah its his ability to adjust at the moment that makes him amazing. It was probably best seen in SA where he scored a century in both innings of a test, one was a very patient knock where he grinded the runs, and the second was one of dominatioon, when the conditions eased up.

The thing that is preventing me from getting all worked up and saying he's going to not only trump Dravid and Kallis at the end of their careers, but Sachin and Lara too is because all most of these absolute champion players go through an amazing patch (mind you not all, if many at all which have one like Ponting is having right now). Eventually the patch ends, and they sort of return to the pack.

Honestly if anyone asked you the question "Is Sachin going to hold the run and century record for test and ODI cricket at the end of his career" in the year 1998, you would have most likely answered yes, or "very very likely". He was only 25-26 and was dominating almost every match he played in both forms. Eventually a player will fall a little, and you'd think Ponting will eventually return to the pack. But for the time being he's clearly the best batsman in the world.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, it's very likely that Ponting will decline, as all players do. His purple patch in the last 6 months has been the most stunning of his career without question, and it's unlikely he will keep it up, but ever since he rebounded from that awful tour of India in 2001 he has been incredible.

In his last 51 tests, since the start of 2002, he has an average of 70.37 with 21 centuries. Bradman of course played 52, and averaged 99 with 28 centuries. A pretty nice comparison for Ponting there.

 

[open365]

I can't really say anything more about Ponting that hasn't already been said countless times, great batsman, miles ahead of everyone in world cricket currently.

 

[marc71178]

Here is an interesting article on Ponting's form of late.
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/bdeshvaus/content/current/story/244235.html

Meh, it's all luck if you believe some people.

 

[DanielFullard]

Ponting for me.....a joy to watch and in my eyes one of the greatest ever

 

[silentstriker]

Tendulkar
Ponting
Lara

In that order.

 

[kvemuri]

I don't - AND you called me Einstein yesterday.

That was the funniest retort to Richard's comment..hats off.

Coming to the topic...for all his achievements (even though off late he has shown decline, really hate using that word for him).its Tendulkar. He played his best cricket when India had the ****tiest team with bowlers like Srinath and co, i hope he can regain that lost glory and fast.

 

[honestbharani]

Ponting is easily the best post 2000 batsman now. But I just think he still hasn't faced the same quality of bowling as he did pre 2000. I know it is not his fault at all, but it is just one thing that makes me reluctant to call him the best I have ever seen. But he is easily the best batter at the moment. Will be interesting to see how he goes against England in the Ashes later this year. England have this uncanny ability of shutting down the best (and dominating) batters of the opposition. Will be interesting to see if they can do the same to Ponting. Could be the difference between winning and losing the Ashes, I feel.